← All Phrases

“unexplained investment”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69Section 695,821 judgments

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 254/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 234ASection 234CSection 254(1)Section 69

case, the learned AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts and in making addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of unexplained investments u/s 69 without considering the facts & submissions in proper perspective and on presumption & suspicion. The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT (Appeals ... Baroda. Such act of assessee was unusual. On the basis of such observation, the AO disallowed Rs. 25,00,000/- by treating as unexplained investment under section 69 and tax the same under section 115BBE. 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

RAMA YADAV,. vs. ACIT/DCIT, .

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 272/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250

issue in Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is 5. with respect to the addition of INR 79,34,354/- made towards unexplained investment in acquisition of the immovable property. 6. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record

CHINTANBHAI LAVJIBHAI DANKHARA,SURAT vs. ITO, SURAT

ITA 769/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 44Section 69

erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to make additions towards alleged unexplained investments, despite the fact that the assessee is not required to maintain books of account under the provisions of Section ... invocation of Section 69 is untenable in the absence of books of account, as the very foundation of unexplained investment under Section 69 presupposes a comparison with recorded entries in books. In the absence of such books, the addition made is arbitrary, lacks legal basis, and deserves to be deleted

NAND SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nSh. Ramkishan Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: \nSh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

producing high yield and could generate higher income as per\ngovernment statistics. The Ld. CIT(A), however, sustained the\nadditions made on account of 'unexplained investment' and estimating\nthe trading profit.\n5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the present appeal has been filed\nbefore this Tribunal. During ... Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income, including Rs. 2,31,451 as a trading addition and Rs. 54,27,653 for unexplained investment in agricultural land. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition for agricultural income but sustaining the additions for unexplained investment

BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILL, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-3 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1350/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nSh. Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

well as on\nthe facts of the case in confirming the estimated addition made by Id. AO on account of\nalleged the unexplained investment in the initial unaccounted capital involved @50% of\nthe suppressed sale (less the estimated addition of the gross profit), u/s 69/69C of the Act.\nThe addition ... assessee both on legal issue\nas well as on the facts of the case and confirmed the additions made on\nthe account of unexplained investment and unexplained sales.\n5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the present appeal has been\npreferred before this Tribunal. During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7843/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

pressure of search was built so much that I had to make this surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and hence there being no such income as undisclosed”. He claimed that the money seized already stood declared as out of known sources

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

pressure of search was built so much that I had to make this surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and hence there being no such income as undisclosed”. He claimed that the money seized already stood declared as out of known sources

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7839/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SCHOOL OF ENGIERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7518/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ab)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

270A", "271AAC"], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO were justified, especially regarding the denial of 12A registration benefits and unexplained investments, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice

VIKAS AGARWAL,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6485/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 153ASection 69

issue raised by the assessee is regarding the addition of Rs.22,50,000/- for AY 2016-17 made by the ld. AO on account unexplained investment by relying upon annexure-A1. 6. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The ld. Counsel

VIKAS AGARWAL,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6484/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 153ASection 69

issue raised by the assessee is regarding the addition of Rs.22,50,000/- for AY 2016-17 made by the ld. AO on account unexplained investment by relying upon annexure-A1. 6. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The ld. Counsel

VIKAS AGARWAL,BULANDSHAHAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6483/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 153ASection 69

issue raised by the assessee is regarding the addition of Rs.22,50,000/- for AY 2016-17 made by the ld. AO on account unexplained investment by relying upon annexure-A1. 6. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The ld. Counsel

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

pressure of search was built so much that I had to make this surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and hence there being no such income as undisclosed”. He claimed that the money seized already stood declared as out of known sources

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5519/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5518/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Showing 1–20 of 5,821 · Page 1 of 292

...